Hi
I'm curious as to whether the summing in these mixers is vastly different from the summing process in say cubase and logic? I'm just getting into using my SCOPE platform again after not doing much with it for ages... I'm tending to lean towards software and DSP solutions these days in favor of my hardware (a lot of which I've sold recently) and it would be great if I could use these mixers as an alternate "software" summing mixer instead of forking out tons of cash for a hardware summing mixer. Obviously I realise I won't be getting the same quality and sound as something like a thermionic culture fat bustard, but I dont nescessarily need that. A lot of people on gearslutz.com swear that Pro Tools for example has more depth due to its summing engine as opposed to DP, Cubase and Logic. Anyone here done any tests or anything to see whether summing with mixers like these would produce more favourable results?

As of right now the Valve mixers are a great comparison to the Fat Bustard, which I would love to own. The FB5 ( FAT BASTARD ), is a fine mixer, and IMHO it makes no sense to sum outside of the box once you are inside, unless you are using DP, Logic or Spubase. Their mixdown quality is sterile comapred to DSP platfroms like PT or Scope.
I would love to use the Fat Bustard w/ SpacwF's MB4-II sending 4 x stereo busses to the FOH.
I was using a Crest X for that, but the difference was small according to the FOH. But the Fat Bustard is no regular mixer.

Great, thats what I wanted to hear. I'm doing most of my work in Cubase 5, and I'm not set on summing outside the box... as a matter of fact I'd much rather keep everything ITB instead, its just I've never found a viable alternative to summing ITB (especially summing and imparting a bit of extra character on your mix) other than my sequencers engine. I'll definitely give these a go then.

I pop-in just to remind that the demos are good to hear the sound and test dsp usage, but they generally don't include the latest updates or optimizations (which make the panels and vus much faster: the interface feels very light compared to previous versions or demos - that's because demos are devices that have to be built as demos, ie, modification of circuits and so on... very long job when the developpers prefer to make updates or new devices).

Also, if you have xite, I cannot promiss that they behave like on scope (there is the need of optimized modules for xite, for now it will work on compatibility mode which uses some ressources just for compatibility, which is ok, but it can be better - some gigantic devices of mine such as the FB5 are not something people like to use on xite). So I cannot promiss that this mixer will be exactly the same on xite (for this i will need xite+optimized modules... and testing that i can't do right now). So, if you are on xite, I generally advise people who contact me to wait until I am on xite too, or to request other xite users for advices... that's the best i can do for now for everybody peace of mind.

If you are on Scope, it will take 7 dsp with all channels and "fat" activated. So it is a big mixer. I advise a single scope board for it, because if you use pulsars for example, 1 dsp will have to be loaded on another board. I am not a fan of multiple boards personnally, but other people had better experience than me (I use "generation 1" board for backward compatibility reasons, and those early boards are known to not like cascading of multiple cards).

I have cubase 5 and subjectively or objectively, the sound of Scope is superior: more presence, more definition, more dimension. This is true for the Valve and FP mixers too. What I do is that I create groups in Cubase, where I group various tracks, or single audio channels, and send those groups to Scope. That way, you can use the best of both words (Eqs on Cubase, and dynamics, more eqs and levels on Scope).

If you mix stereo tracks in majority, then the FP Mixers is probably a better choice. You can add the FAT as inserts effects (they are sold seperately and come with "LimFat"which has limiting too). So it is more flexible in terms of ressources eventhough the real deal in term of sound of the FAT are the Valve mixers (I personally use the FP mixers for my works, but I have "only" 14 dsp, wich is a bit limited for people like me who like to use as many synths as possible in scope...

Try them (Fat Inserts or Valve mixers) on any analog or digital source or master of any music style (I mainly do rock and reggae, pop stuff, my friends do trance or hip hop, i do pre-master checks and re-recording using just a stereo fat insert in the project...)...

The name "Valve" mixer is not exact; it was not made to simulate valve distortion, but the impression you get with hardware equipment of a better sound with bigger dimension. So if it can simulate valve, the simulation stops when you begin to hear distortion.

The Fat - in terms of how it affects the sound - is close to what you get with a Waves L2 if you used this plugin, it is the closest comparison. Especially when you push the limiter on the L2, but without the limiting and with much less low end at the settings that i advise - i advise people to be subtle and to stop adding fat as soon as they begin to hear it (around 50% of the FAT at a *1 rate) . Fat is more a question of "rounding the sound to make it sound like it comes from hardware", and with frequencies that I prefer (less boring to me, in the bass spectrum, with this detail that FAT also acts on the mediums - if you run a movie-dvd into a channel with FAT, you will watch a better movie... same with a commercial CD, ie all kind of stuff that have been mastered already). I compare with Waves L2 because since i made the Fats, I don't use this plugin anymore and have sucessfully replaced it with FATs and LimFat. and L2 was an essential tool for me, in the past... My own valve equipment ranges from guitar amps (Marshall 4210 with electro harmonics tube if i remember) , valve microphone and preamps, tubetech compresors that i used in studios,. I also like some transistor preamp that have eqs that sound big, and other non valve stuff such as the Ensoniq EPS16+ which has this thick sound that exists nowhere else...

FAT are not made to simulate all those equipments of course, but they add ingredient in the sound that make the sound rather equivalent to what you get with such equipment in terms of body and analog impression etc... compared to not using them...

Let your ears be the the only judge and don't be influenced by all i said above which is "just me" (the guy who made them so... ) ...

Thanks a lot for the info. From the sounds of it, the FP mixers sound like the best option as I'm pretty much looking for a summing solution for stem mixing, so I'll predominantly be using stereo group channels to output, say, eight stereo outputs to an external mixer. I'll check them out as soon as Im back in my studio as Im currently overseas on tour at the moment, but I'll post my findings and thoughts here afterwards.

Finally got round to demo'ing some of your software... while I'm not sure the mixers are essential to the kind of work I'm doing, I was however extremily impressed with the FAT inserts. Great sounding plugs mate, really add a nice dose of "oomph" and I found them especially useful on low frequency elements. Think they sound pretty good over a whole mix as well if used sparingly, but it really shines when using it on a few selected channels like bass and kick drum (sweetens up the drum buss nicely as well). While I realize they're meant to be used subtly, I have found that they're pretty damn useful as well with dance stuff in particular if you drive the hell out them. They seem to introduce a small amount of distortion that gives you a similar effect to something like Steinbergs old quadrafuzz, which I still use quite often, only the FAT inserts sound way more creamy and smooth. Will grab myself a full copy asap.